IxDA - Comments for "Conflict of Usability goals with Training objectives?"http://ixda.org/node/18073
Comments for "Conflict of Usability goals with Training objectives?"enConflict of Usability goals with Training objectives?http://ixda.org/node/18073#comment-58044
<p>This question reminds me of my experience that the development of<br />
applications in corporations is often the first impetus to define,<br />
articulate and maybe then reengineer some process or task. And that<br />
this definition takes place concurrently with requirements gathering.<br />
Of course where this all comes together is the time set aside to<br />
introduce the new application along with the new process. So training<br />
may see their goals as being more than teaching an application and<br />
therefore feel at odds with what they see as merely<br />
&quot;usability-theoretical&quot; issues.</p>
<p>Of course this doesn't contradict Ziya's comment. And this is clearly<br />
not an endorsement of the above just something I have witnessed. I see<br />
it as reinforcing Ziya's remarks about the need for the role of the UX<br />
designer and the incorporation of that role into the process from the<br />
beginning when any task is formalized or reengineered and will acquire<br />
an application into process.</p>
<p>-----------------------------------------------------<br />
Chick Foxgrover</p>
Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:59:13 +0000Chick Foxgrovercomment 58044 at http://ixda.orgConflict of Usability goals with Training objectives?http://ixda.org/node/18073#comment-57956
<p>Prady Rai:</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;<i> Because in a corporate setting there's an inverse relationship between UCD<br />
</i>&gt;&gt;<i> and training?<br />
</i>&gt;<i><br />
</i>&gt;<i> Do you mean inverse relation with ultimate product quality, because<br />
</i>&gt;<i> product quality will be subject to compromise by training assuptions?<br />
</i><br />
One of the largest projects I ever worked on, a financial *web* app, had a<br />
manual nearly 200 pages long and a small army who'd go out to customers'<br />
premises for a day or so to train them!</p>
<p>The app's IA/UI/UX was ghastly. One of the main reasons I was brought in to<br />
redesign it was to have someone strong enough to stand up to this group<br />
because, apparently, every time someone attempted to do something about the<br />
app's usability the trainers would shoot it down by saying that they were<br />
already spending money on training and would take care of the problem by,<br />
you guessed it, more training. Nobody had an incentive to make the app more<br />
usable, since &quot;trainers could take up the slack later.&quot;</p>
<p>Let's say that they didn't receive me warmly. :-)</p>
<p>&gt;&gt;<i> Because UCD is infinitely harder to pull off than training?<br />
</i>&gt;<i><br />
</i>&gt;<i> Can you elaborate more on that? I am not sure if I understand it<br />
</i>&gt;<i> correctly. Wisdom of common sense finds it hard to swallow because<br />
</i>&gt;<i> they argue there will always be training for other marketing reasons -<br />
</i>&gt;<i> enforcing the processes, customer relationship, user satisfaction,<br />
</i>&gt;<i> etc.<br />
</i><br />
Training may have other uses but it shouldn't be a substitute for better<br />
designed apps that, generally speaking, reduce the need for training (on how<br />
to use the app).</p>
<p>At the beginning of the web, I got a lot of flak for pointing out that many<br />
websites (especially large corporate ones) used site maps as a crutch, in<br />
lieu of well-designed navigation systems. I've seen some elaborate graphical<br />
site maps that must have taken more effort to produce than the actual site<br />
navigation.</p>
<p>UCD is harder than training in the sense that a shorter essay is harder to<br />
write than a longer one.:-)</p>
<p>Ziya<br />
Nullius in Verba</p>
Mon, 01 Nov 2004 04:39:07 +0000Listeracomment 57956 at http://ixda.orgConflict of Usability goals with Training objectives?http://ixda.org/node/18073#comment-57918
<p>Listera &lt;<A href="http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/listinfo.cgi/discuss-interactiondesigners.com">listera at rcn.com</a>&gt; wrote:</p>
<p>&gt;<i> &gt; Why is there conflict of interest?<br />
</i>&gt;<i><br />
</i>&gt;<i> Because in a corporate setting there's an inverse relationship between UCD<br />
</i>&gt;<i> and training?<br />
</i><br />
Do you mean inverse relation with ultimate product quality, because<br />
product quality will be subject to compromise by training assuptions?</p>
<p>&gt;<i><br />
</i>&gt;<i> Because UCD is infinitely harder to pull off than training?<br />
</i><br />
Can you elaborate more on that? I am not sure if I understand it<br />
correctly. Wisdom of common sense finds it hard to swallow because<br />
they argue there will always be training for other marketing reasons -<br />
enforcing the processes, customer relationship, user satisfaction,<br />
etc.</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Prady</p>
Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:37:03 +0000Pradyot Raicomment 57918 at http://ixda.orgConflict of Usability goals with Training objectives?http://ixda.org/node/18073#comment-57890
<p>Prady Rai:</p>
<p>&gt;<i> Why is there conflict of interest?<br />
</i><br />
Because in a corporate setting there's an inverse relationship between UCD<br />
and training?</p>
<p>Because less UCD guarantees more training?</p>
<p>Because UCD is infinitely harder to pull off than training?</p>
<p>Because you can smart-design away someone's comfortable training job?</p>
<p>----<br />
Ziya</p>
<p>Generalizations are always inaccurate.</p>
Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:20:16 +0000Listeracomment 57890 at http://ixda.org